Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
It is not that it is influenced or accelerated by human activity, which is capitalist systema ctivity, but it is created. In total. The effect of the rays of the sun as in sun spots is not there at all.
It may seem a small point but it is in fact everything.
The hockey stick IS global heating of the earth caused by the capitalist system. It is capitalism and its greed for profit that has caused this.
What is this. It is the end of civilization.
Ted Belman wrote
“As you know, there are thre questions.
1 . Is the climate changing? Of course.
2. to what extent is the warming, man made? Opinions vary on this.
3. Assuming that man is a major contributor to the warming, are the proposed changes in man’s behavior worth the cost. I think not even if we were certain that the problem is caused by man.
The NYT article only deals with the first question.
The question number 1 of Belman is nonsensical. Tell me what in nature does not change? As for the rest he admits now there is warming, but says the question is whether it is man made. If it is not man made what does it? No answer.
People on Israpundit do not wish to read evidence. They read it and dismiss it.
I have read many articles debunking the consensus and even the concensus itself. As you know nothing that was forcast for the first 20 years happenned. So I remain skeptical. But I am will to listen and learn.
I do admit that I have reluctance to accept conventional thinjking because there is so much fake news out there. The Left is driven by the agenda. That in itself makes me skeptical of everything they report.
Banks are still financing condos of the ocean. Big money isn’t worried about it either. How come?”
In relation to the banks how naive does Belman expect us to take him?
@ Edgar G.: Thanks, Edgar, for your many complements concerning my environmental posts. I will think seriously about writing to someone in authority about my concerns about the Israeli environment. My impression is that Israel’s Department of Environmental Affairs (whatever its exact name) is well aware of these problems and is trying to develop a plan for coping with them. Some progress has already been made. As everywhere in the world, there are economic special interests that are resisting needed environmental measures because they may lose money if they are carried out. In Israel, I believe, the main resistance comes from the phosphate industry, which has been destroying the Dead Sea for decades.
I have no use for Trudeau. What a jerk. Even many in his own party now recognize this.
I am well aware that climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions, even several billion years on Planet Earth. And yes, the main causes have always been natural, not human created. And yes, climate change has tended to be cyclical, at least for the past 100,000 years (the glacial and interglacial periods).
However, this does not logically mean that the current warming trend is not influenced or accelerated by human activity. People are releasing more hydrocarbons and a range of other chemicals into the atmosphere than they did in the past. Nor does it necessarily mean that this trend is harmless to humans. There have never been nearly as many people on the earth as there are now, so that changes in weather patterns and average temperatures have the potential to do a lot more damage to people than in the past. The interdendence of people in differnet parts of the world also increases this vulnerability. In earlier centuries, if there were crop failures in Brazil or China, it had little impact on people in Europe. Now and in the future, they will have an impact on these far-away places.
Ted, can you reprint for us the full Wall Street Journal article? I don’t have a subscription and can’t read it in full.
“We” will only learn whether global warming will cause severe health problems circa 2100, when all of our readers are dead and even our grandchildren have passed away. But the California “excremental” crisis is immediate, and may cause outbreaks of bubonic plague, typhoid, typhus, yellow fever and a thousand other deadly diseases from past centuries that were thought to have vanished for good. Incredibly poor and short-sighted political leadership in California seems to be the problem.
Edgar
The full paragraph is
I am not sure what he is referring to here in “the oldest and thickest ice”.
Am I right in saying that only the south pole is based on land. There is a land base under the Antarctic. Not the Arctic.
This is important because of serious other geographic factors, for example warm water at lowest level entering and creating a prising away situation of ice from land.
I watched this video a while ago. I made a note “Did you know…The State of Sea Level Rise(2019)
url is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9pH5d7vKBs
Note that Gore says “next century”. He has been lied about but that sets his record straight.
The other thing about the Arctic Ocean is that there has always been a melt freeze situation up there. Summer ended in September and by then the normal was a melt of up to 50 per cent. Maybe the 95 per cent in certain elements of the arctic is possible. Romm usually can back up.
As I understand it this melt would in normal times be staying where it was.
The focus on the Arctic is the effects below the Arctic area. What happens there does not stay there. Effects on the Gulf Stream.
The picture of the dogs which went with the Henry Fountain NYT article was from North Greenland which is in the Arctic area, the North that is. That melt will drain into the Atlantic and into the islands in North Canada. But this melting will release methane.
Also re your relative. This is a definite trend. If you have a big investment and if climate threatens that many many people will act defensively.
Good point this. Elites in general are running very scared. Explains a lot.
You are right on issue of earth rising up when ice melts. The very action of earth rising, and spreading, is going to force water into smaller space, and result is increase in rise of oceans. It is these consequential actions that are so important.
Altogether what is threatened is the end of civilization. Who has led civilization for 3000 years. Jews have led. This threat will wipe out the Jews above all. An end to civilization means no Jews. And vice versa. But some are not getting this.
An end to civilization means an end to all. I mean all that is of any value. Life will not be worth living.
Better get this worked out.
Already here somebody has come in to defend Morano. It took me a mere 5 minutes in this video to see Morano is a scoundrel. Negative putting down but coupled with absence of science.
This is also a feature of Trump. The great man, the Father of Israel, the King of Israel they say, dismissed it with no science at all…Fake News! Pass on. No need for the “King” to deal with Logic.
How easy it is to be a “King”!
Thank you Ted for posting an excellent interview with Marc Morano.
Try searching Marc Morano, and Google provides irrelevant or hostile entries only. You have to go via duckduck to get proper search results.
No wonder many people still believe in the climate Change hoax. As Long as they get thir infor from MSM and skewered search results, they’ll never understand.
@ Felix Quigley:
Felix a question….If 95% of Arctic ice has melted, how is it that the oceans have not risen appreciably. I recall an article a few years ago which showed that Arctic ice was melting, but that Antarctic ice was increasing…. There are many conflicting and contradictory reports so how is one to know except by something one can actually see….. like an appreciable rise in ocean levels. .I have family who own apartments at Palm Beach, just 3 ft. above sea level, and paid a very hefty price for them too.
NASA Oceanographer Joshua Willis says that along the US coastline, levels have actually fallen over the past 20 years. Other scientists and studies say that with ice melting it releases the weight pressure on the earth, which in consequence, rises.
A couple of months ago I saw a graph which showed that from 1880 to today, the levels moved up and down over years just like a many-year stock market graph. That over the past 5 years the sea has risen about 2mm a year but for the previous 5 it had gone down 1.7 mm a year….etc.etc…. So where does all this leave us.. ready to be committed to Grangegorman…????.
I know places where the sea has encroached on what was formerly land. But they were due to the effects of storms and violent sea action.
I’m no xcientist but Bear….I don’t think that my posts are just “hot air’ and hope you dont think so either. They pose serious questions.which need answers..
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
For moment Adam I thought you were going to to blame Ted for climate change…… Have you read any of the serious studies that have monitored the emissions of major volcanic action always happening in one place or the other, and the real damage they cause to the atmosphere.
There have been serious studies, complete with core samples of thousands of years, which aver that climate change is ALWAYS happening, and is cyclical, even with cycles within cycles, regardless of the minor -by comparison- changes that man-made emissions make..
Ive seen a serious study which said that it would take 1.7 trillion years before all of the earth’s hydrogen would escape into space. If I recall… at 3 kg per sec.
There are studies that show clearly that the vast portion of our oxygen comes from the ocean, and is endless. Photosynthesis is involved.
There’s a lot more on the topic, a LOT. No need to tell you that..
I recall once reading a study which tabulated the air damage done endlessly for many thousands of years uninterruptedly, by forest fires started by lightning bolts, long before fire brigades and relying of rain storms to extinguish them.
It’s actually a fascinating subject and your post is really excellent and full of detail, although at a couple of points you were teetering on the edge of Trudeaumania….
Considering the Israeli climatic problems….what will they be like when there are 15-20 million people living there…It would do no harm to send a few letters containing your details (which are actually more than posts) to the Aliya authorities and the Environment Ministry.. , …..
The Hockey Stick is a good metaphor because it has a long stable handle and a sharp turn at the end. The graph of Michael Mann all those years ago contained explosive speed. This is shown in this latest news from the Arctic conveyed to us by Joe Romm:
“Rapidly disintegrating Arctic sea ice leaves scientists ‘shocked’
And that means faster sea level rise, faster global warming, and more extreme weather for us.
JOE ROMM
DEC 11, 2018, 1:08 PM
IT: WOLFGANG KAEHLER/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES.
The annual Arctic Report Card from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is out, but it appears that humanity is flunking science badly.
As NOAA reports, “Arctic air temperatures for the past five years (2014-18) have exceeded all previous records since 1900.” And one stunning result of this is that 95 percent of the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice has disintegrated in just three decades.
The Report Card makes clear that our failure to slow global warming has led to an all-but irreversible Arctic death spiral — which in turn is driving more extreme weather in this country, faster sea level rise everywhere, and more rapid disintegration of the carbon-rich permafrost, which in turn causes even faster global warming.
TOP ARTICLES
1/5
Earth’s thawing permafrost threatens to unleash a dangerous climate feedback loop
Climate models have always predicted that human-caused warming would be at least twice as fast in the Arctic compared to across the planet as a whole thanks to arctic amplification?—?this is when highly reflective snow and ice melts due to higher temperatures, it is replaced by the dark blue sea or darker land, both of which absorb more solar energy, leading to more melting.
Even so, NASA scientists who in March flew over the region north of Greenland — home to much of the Arctic’s oldest and thickest ice — were stunned by how much the thickest sea ice had been broken up into pieces as opposed to remaining a solid sheet. NASA cryo-scientist Nathan Kurtz, who has been on many such research flights, told the Washington Post, “I was just shocked by how different it was.”
Unfortunately for America and the rest of the planet, the best science makes clear that what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.
“Growing atmospheric warmth in the Arctic results in a sluggish and unusually wavy jet-stream that coincided with abnormal weather events in both the Arctic and mid-latitudes,” as NOAA’s Report Card explains. In short, the Arctic’s rapid warming is driving more extreme weather in this country, such as heavy precipitation on the East Coast and extreme drought on the West Coast.
Rapid arctic warming also speeds up the release of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and methane from the thawing permafrost — a dangerous amplifying feedback that in turn speeds up warming? planet-wide.
Finally, the faster the Arctic warms, the faster the land-based Greenland ice sheet melts and the faster sea levels rise. One 2017 study found that Greenland ice mass loss has tripled in just two decades.
Unlike students who fail a test in school, there are no do-overs or make-up exams for humanity’s failure in the Arctic (and everywhere else on the planet).
Failure just means ever worsening climate impact for our children and grandchildren and countless generations to come.”
https://thinkprogress.org/scientists-shocked-that-warming-has-wiped-out-oldest-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-febe927ab619/
There is too much at stake.
If these two studies are wrong and if tree planting ends up doubling the temperature of the earth for the reasons stated in the commentary on other studies by Joe Romm we need to know.
The issue is the “hockey stick”, which is the capitalist system and nothing else, which is now an ailing world and false theories.
The “Hockey Stick” of Michael Mann is SPEED and it is EXTINCTION.
From this comes the youth of “Extinction Rebellion” strangely enough in Britain where Marx and Engels studied the very thing itself, capitalism.
@ Adam Dalgliesh!:I take no credit except for reading the scientific studies.
The Israeli one specified certain trees would do the job better. This was a 16 year study. Both studies says the trees need to be planted in mass in Sub-Saharan Africa plus Australia to work. This is a massive project that will take lots of resources and organization. This is economically viable from what I read, as in Africa the wood from the trees will assist the economic growth.
This is a win win assuming it is done and works per the studies.
@ Bear Klein: An excellent proposal, Bear, and excellent selections from articles that support your proposal. I have always known intuitively that preservation of forest land and reforestation were major keys to limiting the damage done to the environment and the quality of life, and preserving some of theearth’s beauty, combatting pollution, creating fresh, breathable air, cooling the air, preserving sources of pure, healthy water, and many other ways of limiting the destructive impacts of “development,” and “civilization.” However, to my dismay I have seen the forests shrink and rather than expand in my native New York State, sure urban sprawl,logging, the massive increase in cars, constant building of new roads, etc. I think that the same shrinkage in forested areas is happening all over the world, at least in all “developed” and “developing” countries. What a tragic error!
What is a clear sign of a not very intelligent person when they spout their views and commentary in the face of two different scientific studies reaching virtually the same conclusion. They just yack away do not read the studies but keep talking.
Hot air from the non-intelligent.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
I have already dealt with your reforestation “solution”…so what is your source for the above as a solution.
You have to be a lot more explicit in what you mean and you need to begin to act properly here and give some sources. That is after all the scientific method, so that others do not have to take your word for it but can check up on it for themselves.
@ Bear Klein:
The First Rule of Carbon Offsets: No Trees
JOE ROMM
JUN 29, 2007, 4:20 PM
Everybody loves trees. They are so popular as offsets they even make Wikipedia’s definition:
When one is unable or unwilling to reduce one’s own emissions, Carbon offset is the act of reducing (“offsetting”) greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. A well-known example is the planting of trees to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from personal air travel.
But does planting trees reduce global warming? Not in most places on the Earth. The Carnegie Institution’s Ken Caldeira summarized the result of a major 2005 study (detailed below) this way:
To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time.
Agriculture’s role in climate change draws scrutiny from
2020 Democrats
Why? Because forest canopies are relatively dark, compared to what they replace outside the tropics?—?grass, croplands, or snowfields?—?and so they absorb more of the sun’s heating rays that fall on them. That negates the “carbon sink” benefit trees have soaking up carbon dioxide. Worse, the study found that planting a large number of trees in high latitudes would “probably have a net warming effect on the Earth’s climate.” Ouch!
So what about an offset project involving tree planting in the tropics where water evaporating from trees increases cloudiness, which keeps the planet cool, according to models? Tropical-tree-planting offset projects suffer from a different problem:
How can we be sure that the project is resulting in a net increase in tropical trees? Imagine planting 1000 acres of trees in Brazil, where the full extent of annual deforestation is not known precisely. How do we know that an extra 1000 acres won’t be chopped down somewhere else in the country?
Until countries with tropical forests join an international greenhouse gas treaty and are subject to rigorous verification strategies, tree-related offset projects will not deliver guaranteed, quantifiable benefits.
So if you are thinking about purchasing offsets, be wary of any company that says it plants trees.
As for the study mentioned earlier, “Climate Effects of Global Land Cover Change,” by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, here’s the abstract:
There are two competing effects of global land cover change on climate: an albedo effect which leads to heating when changing from grass/croplands to forest, and an evapotranspiration effect which tends to produce cooling. It is not clear which effect would dominate in a global land cover change scenario. We have performed coupled land/ocean/atmosphere simulations of global land cover change using the NCAR CAM3 atmospheric general circulation model. We find that replacement of current vegetation by trees on a global basis would lead to a global annual mean warming of 1.6 C, nearly 75% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while global replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 C. These results suggest that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming. In particular, high latitude forests probably have a net warming effect on the Earth’s climate.
Offset projects should simply not include tree planting.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-first-rule-of-carbon-offsets-no-trees-f2753c04f37e/
Two different studies about planting masses of trees in the correct locations on earth could positively reduce C02 plus cool the climate. This is a constructive way to solve the problem. This is challenging but not the stupid and economic disasters ideas of people like AOC with the Green New Deal. This something every reasonable person could get behind. In places like Africa and elsewhere this could have positive economic impact aside from solving the climate problem. There is climate change how much is natural and how much is man made is the question. Planting masses of trees in the correct locations should solve the issue without economic disaster.
Ted, climate change is not a hoax. Nearly all scientists who have studied climate-related data over the past 150+ years are in agreement that it is happening, and that human activity is at least one factor contributing to it.
Legitimate climate scientists do have varying opinions about how much damage it is likely to cause humans. Most think that very severe damage is unlikely to occur before roughly 2100, and that a few fairly simple steps, if followed by all major hydrocarbon “producing” nations, can minimize the damage. These measures do not require a ban on fossil fuels- only more widespread use of carbon capture technology that already exists. Reforestation, if widespread and carried out by many countries, also has the potential to minimize climate change.
You can find all this in the much-derided and unfairly criticized Federal multiagency task force report.
The Amazon forest can regenerate itself if left alone after clearing. It can’t regenerate, however, if it converted to banana or other fruit plantations, or grasslands for use by cattle ranchers. That is also true of foersts in the U.S. and elsewhere as well.
Nearly all the climate change deniers are jounalists and politicians who lack scientific credentials. The only ones with genuine scientific training are lobbyists for industries who feel threatened by the climate change narrative.
But what really bothers me, Ted, about your persistent pushing of the climate-change-denial narrative is that is damaging to Israel. After all, many people who support Israel are concerned about the environment. For that matter, many Israelis are concerned about Israel’s own environmental problems, which are very real and serious. Why alienate these Israelis, who are not all hard-core leftists by any means?
And why undermine the sales of the many innovative carbon-capture and alternative-fuel technologies, including nearly pollution-free cars and planes, that Israel’s many start-up technology firms are now marketing worldwide? The climate-change narrative is a useful talking point in enabling these firms to market these technologies. Why, then, are you constantly attacking it? Of course, even if climate change doesn’t happen, these technologies will still be useful for a thousand other reasons. These firms deserve our support.
Pro-Israel advocates seem to have a sure instinct for how to alienate everyone who is not already completely committed to Israel’s cause–and even manage to turn off many people who are pro-Israel. This complete lack of any sense of how to win friends and influence people is shared by the entire Israeli political and intellectual establishment. Under constant and virulent attack, Israel is one of the few countries in the world that has no information or public relations department in its government. This complete obliviousness to the need for better public relations is bizarre, and it will doom Israel if there is not a massive consciousness-raising about the need for national public relations (as distinct from purely commercial commercial advertising by private businesses, which Israeli businessmen do understand).